The Atonement Doctrine (Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?)

[viole]

Oh, but one can be a believer and open minded about evidence. That is my entire premise, if the evidence led to an inescapable conclusion that that abiogenesis and the alleged evolutionary theory were true, I would have to re examine my faith. That evidence doesn't exist. From a totally scientintific perspective I can produce evidence just as strong that it is false

And you have evidence that Jesus walked on water and was unavailable a couple of days for our sins, right?

Funny thing is that evolution seems to be shared by virtually all scientists, independently from their culture and upbringing, while you guys are not even sure whether God looks like an elephant or a Jew, whether he really provides cab service to prophets in the form of winged horses, has a son, etc.

I mean, not even Christians agree on the most basic stuff, which seriously calls into question your alleged relationship with the Almighty. Unless you just talk about football or the weather during those sessions.. on second thought, you probably do not even talk about those

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

And you have evidence that Jesus walked on water and was unavailable a couple of days for our sins, right?

Funny thing is that evolution seems to be shared by virtually all scientists, independently from their culture and upbringing, while you guys are not even sure whether God looks like an elephant or a Jew, whether he really provides cab service to prophets in the form of winged horses, has a son, etc.

I mean, not even Christians agree on the most basic stuff, which seriously calls into question your alleged relationship with the Almighty. Unless you just talk about football or the weather during those sessions.. on second thought, you probably do not even talk about those

Ciao

- viole

Well, first, evolution is not shared by VIRTUALLY ALL scientists, that is a fallacy. So, you no longer want to discuss the science of the issue, and have pivoted instead to disrespectful, offensive and snarky comments. I somehow thought that you were above this, my bad. This is typical though of many evolutionists who find it not so easy to support their faith when they run into someone who as taken the time to actually look at the science. So, what is your purpose in being in what is supposed to be a discussion of a Christian theological concept ? Aren't their evolutionist/atheist groups where you can discuss your faith ?

 

[MountainPine]

Wow! How did this devolve into a debate about evolution?

 

[Ben Avraham]

The sacrificial atonement of Jesus can only exist to people who ideologically accept the claim and dogma of original sin. It's a wholly Christian concept that is no more true than the Buddhist principle of "The Great Going Forth". It works within that set of religious philosophies, but nowhere else.

This is why when very pious people walk around asking strangers if they've been "bathed in the blood of the lamb" they get laughed at or looked on with complete and utter shock, or whatever.
It's a question and conversation that makes sense in their world - but nowhere else.

So, did Jesus really die for my sins? No - he did not.

I do not accept the doctrine of original sin, sacrificial atonement that is necessary to appease a
blood thirsty god, or any Christian or Jewish mythology about the origin of their people or their savior. It's lunacy to me to bring these types of supernatural claims into real-world conversations. Just straight bonkers.

Well Jonathan, I would like to have a word with you about your statement "...or Jewish mythology about the origin of their people." What's wrong with the way we speak of the origin of the Jewish People from our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Where is the mythology of
this way to explain our origin? Are you implying that it did not happen that way?

 

[Ben Avraham]

I think God is angry with humans because of their sins, but Jesus loved us all so much that he offered to God his own life and to receive all the deserved punishement his self instead of us, so that's why he charged with the sins of us all, and who believe in his sacrifice recieve christ gift.

In my case, I can't believe that Jesus sacrificed himself for us because that's not what happened. Jesus was not crucified because of our sins but for the political charge of national insurrection as a result of his own disciples acclaiming him king of the Jews in Jerusalem, a Roman province at the time. (Luke 19:37-40) Hence his verdict commanded by Pilate to be nailed on the top of his cross read INRI. That's the reason why Jesus died so young. Besides, he could not have died for us because he was a Jew who knew that according to the Prophets of God, no one can die for the sins of another. That's in Ezekiel 18:3,20; Jeremiah 31:30, etc. The time is over to spread the wrong version of what happened to Jesus.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well Jonathan, I would like to have a word with you about your statement "...or Jewish mythology about the origin of their people." What's wrong with the way we speak of the origin of the Jewish People from our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Where is the mythology of
this way to explain our origin? Are you implying that it did not happen that way?

Yes, I am.

 

[viole]

Well, first, evolution is not shared by VIRTUALLY ALL scientists, that is a fallacy. So, you no longer want to discuss the science of the issue, and have pivoted instead to disrespectful, offensive and snarky comments. I somehow thought that you were above this, my bad. This is typical though of many evolutionists who find it not so easy to support their faith when they run into someone who as taken the time to actually look at the science. So, what is your purpose in being in what is supposed to be a discussion of a Christian theological concept ? Aren't their evolutionist/atheist groups where you can discuss your faith ?

I am not sure what yoy mean with "snarky comments". I believe that what I said is pretty factual.

And when I say that virtually all scientists accept evolution, I mean it. Sure, there are a few exceptions; alas there are a few exceptions also when we argue against the flatness of the earth.

Let's make an empirical test. Name me all scientists who do not support evolution whose name is a derivate of "Steve". Names like Steffi, Stephanie, Stephen, etc. would apply. And let us compare it with my list of such scientists who do support evolution.

So, it really seems that you dismiss the mountain of evidence that support evolution, the massive agreement of the scientific community, and you consider true a couple of tales whose only evidence is to have been written in an ancient book. Allright.

By the way, are you aware that humans still have a gene that can generate a tail? Some kids have a tail when they are born. i mean, who would design the pinnacle of His creation, the very being in His image, like that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ben Avraham]

Yes, I am.

Well! Was it a hit-and-running statement without any concern for what it could cause in my impression of you? Pity!

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well! Was it a hit-and-running statement without any concern for what it could cause in my impression of you? Pity!

I rarely make hit-n-run statements.
I'm open to discussing the why's of it, if you should wish to engage in that conversation. Though, it appears that my line of thinking is one that you'll find a bit insulting - but you shouldn't.

 

[shmogie]

Big Ben, you seem to resent criticism of your belief system, but you have no problem doing the same mine of mine. What's up with that ?

 

[Muffled]

It doesn't work to claim you believe or you don't. You have got to show the proper evidence from the Tanach. And you don't have to quote the NT to prove bodily resurrection because I am well aware of what Paul said that Jesus resurrected according to his, Paul's gospel. (II Timothy 2:8)

I believe this is one though not a direct reference:
Isa 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

This one is more about a general resurrection:
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

I believe the point was that Martha was Jewish and knew about a resurrection but not the resurrection of Jesus. Certainly Paul knows about the resurrection of Jesus but that is after the fact of its occurrence.

 

[Muffled]

Is believing in abiogenesys a lifestyle? And I am not sure where it is condemned in the Bible. Unless you literally believe that Adam and Eve existed and that water could exist before the first stars. And whomever does not share those beliefs has a lifestyle that is condemned by the Bible. In that case the Bible says a lot of things that would turn any decent scientist in a person whose lifestyle is condemned by the Bible. Unless you demote all those things to "allegorical", of course, as science advances.

Incidentally, being born from dust is also pretty a-biogenetical. Therefore, abiogenesis does not entail atheism.

Ciao

- viole

Why wouldn't a person believe that? Supposedly people had been around for a million years so why wouldn't their remains be present around 5,000 BCE. Supposedly the Celtic speaking gods arrived around 10,000 BCE and had eternal life so their presence is likely also.

I believe that is a mistaken understanding of the word heaven in the text. Heaven can mean a lot of things but in this case the context would indicate that it is the sky ie the atmosphere around the earth. So it is saying the atmosphere was created after the waters and I believe science agrees with that.

I believe in doing so science is unscientific and illogical.

I don't believe it is a literal genesis from dust. I believe a bone was found in the dust and the gods (following God's orders) cloned a fully grown human from the bone marrow and then cloned Eve from Adam so that the race would continue through their children. Considering the science of cloning today it seems quite reasonable that the gods (Aliens with superior technology) would be able to do that.

I believe people read things they don't understand and come to illogical conclusions but that is not the fault of science or the Bible.

 

[Muffled]

If you are not a homosexual or a lesbian, then this particular issue does not apply. I don't know what material he created most life from. Humanity is said to be created from soil, and a preconceived design, with the power and ability to complete the design. Abiogenesis is based upon the the accidental coming together of chemicals in the right proportions, in an environment that is absolutely perfect for these chemicals to combine and become a living organism. First, the mathematical odds of this happening is considered virtually impossible. second, and most importantly, this has never been observed, recreated, and the overall recipe is unknown.

I believe science can only come up with a theory because they are not eyewitnesses to the beginning of life. On the other hand God is our witness and He was there because He created life.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I believe this is one though not a direct reference:
Isa 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

This one is more about a general resurrection:
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

I believe the point was that Martha was Jewish and knew about a resurrection but not the resurrection of Jesus. Certainly Paul knows about the resurrection of Jesus but that is after the

fact of its occurrence.

Okay Muffled, the reason why it pleased the Lord to bruise Israel, the Suffering Servant by rejecting him according to Psalms 78:67-70 is because, by doing so, He would fulfill His promise to David to confirm Judah as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever. (Kings 11:36)

Daniel 12:2 has nothing to do with bodily resurrection. If you read Isaiah 53:8,9, when the Jews are forced into exile, it is as if they have been cut off from the Land of the Living aka Israel and, graves are assigned to them among the nations. At the end of the exile, the Lord opens up those graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. (Ezekiel 37:12) That's called Aliyah. In the case of Daniel 12:2, those who decide to return, it is as if to eternal life in the Land of Israel which is an euphemism. Those who decide to remain in exile, it is as if to condemn themselves to reproach of eternal abhorrence and shame. That's what Daniel 12:1-3 is all
about.

Now, with regards to Martha, rather the opposite is true. She was Jewish no doubt, and for that
matter, she had no idea about bodily resurrection. The point is that the author of that gospel was a Hellenist and he forged the text to insert the Greek doctrine of bodily resurrection.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Big Ben, you seem to resent criticism of your belief system, but you have no problem doing the same mine of mine. What's up with that ?

Nothing, as long as you show the proper evidence for your criticism.

 

[psychoslice]

I believe that Jesus never died for anyone's sins, the story of Jesus dying on the cross was just an example, its was an example for us to die to our carnal self, or our ego self, and being resurrected to our true Self, the Christ, that is who we all truly are, its One thread that runs through all, it is seen in different names such as Christ, Krishna, Buddha and so on, no we have to do the work ourselves.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I rarely make hit-n-run statements.
I'm open to discussing the why's of it, if you should wish to engage in that conversation. Though, it appears that my line of thinking is one that you'll find a bit insulting - but you shouldn't.

I am sure Jonathan, that you are a civilizing person, and for that, entirely able to discuss any thing without hurting through whatever you mean by insulting. The English language is rich in recurses to please and displease. So, it all depends on the use of your Freewill.

 

[shmogie]

Nothing, as long as you show the proper evidence for your criticism.

You see though, I don't complain about your belief system, I support it. You condemn mine with non factual, non historical unproven personal opinion's, violating your own rule of proper evidence.

 

[shmogie]

Okay Muffled, the reason why it pleased the Lord to bruise Israel, the Suffering Servant by rejecting him according to Psalms 78:67-70 is because, by doing so, He would fulfill His promise to David to confirm Judah as a Lamp in Jerusalem forever. (Kings 11:36)

Daniel 12:2 has nothing to do with bodily resurrection. If you read Isaiah 53:8,9, when the Jews are forced into exile, it is as if they have been cut off from the Land of the Living aka Israel and, graves are assigned to them among the nations. At the end of the exile, the Lord opens up those graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. (Ezekiel 37:12) That's called Aliyah. In the case of Daniel 12:2, those who decide to return, it is as if to eternal life in the Land of Israel which is an euphemism. Those who decide to remain in exile, it is as if to condemn themselves to reproach of eternal abhorrence and shame. That's what Daniel 12:1-3 is all
about.

Now, with regards to Martha, rather the opposite is true. She was Jewish no doubt, and for that
matter, she had no idea about bodily resurrection. The point is that the author of that gospel was a Hellenist and he forged the text to insert the Greek doctrine of bodily resurrection.

• Nonsense, and more nonsense. Ben you are obsessed with hellenists. Better look at the archaeolical evidence of how the big guns of the Jewish faith lived in Judea, including members of the sanhedrin, There you will find hellenists. Please PROVE your allegations that part of ANY Gospel was forged by a hellenist. Your OPINION in one hand, and dog droppings in the other are of equal value

 

[MountainPine]

If Jesus was a Jew, why doesn't Judaism accept his message? The book of Hebrews says he was a high priest of the Order of Melkizedek. This means he was a Nazarite from the womb, like the prophet Samson. The Nazarites (the prophets) were opposed to sacrificial atonement, hence Jesus' quoting of Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 12:7.

Just so you know, Judaite doesn't necessarily mean Jew. Present day Judea (the West Bank) was formerly known as the Kingdom of Judah, and in Biblical times, after the Kingdom of Judah's destruction, this land changed hands many times. It was a province of the Babylonian Empire from 586 to 539 BC; a province of the Persian Empire from 539 to 332 BC; a province of the empire of Alexander the Great from 332 to 305 BC; a province of the Ptolemaic dynasty from 305 to 198 BC; a province of the Seleucid Empire from 198 to 141 BC; an independent kingdom under the Hasmoneans from 141 to 37 BC (although it fell under Roman supremacy in 63 BC); ruled by the Herodian Dynasty under Roman supremacy from 37 BC to 70 AD, with periods of direct Roman rule from 6 to 41 AD and 41 to 66 AD. The Jewish Revolt against the Romans from 66 to 73 AD resulted in the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the scattering of the peoples living in Judea. A Judaean could have been a Hebrew, an Israelite, a Judaite, a combination of these three, or none of these. A Jew in the time of Jesus could have been a Hebrew, an Israelite, a Judaite, a Judaean, a combination of these, or none of these.

Another thing to take into account is that Jesus was from Nazareth (Galilee). At that time, Jews didn't dwell in Nazareth, but only in Jerusalem.